Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Gee.... the Columbian is going to blow a gasket over this one: US Senate Backs Allowing Guns In National Parks

.
Last December, the Columbian blew a gasket over allowing guns into parks... as if they were some sort of zone where criminals (The odd murderer/robber aside) simply don't tread, thus there is no conceivable need for non-criminals to be allowed their Second Amendment rights inside the borders of this federal property.

"... Jeers: To the Bush administration for overturning a 25-year-old rule and allowing people with concealed-weapon permits to carry loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. The Columbian opposed this effort back in May, and, more compellingly, the change was opposed earlier by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Yet this week the Interior Department announced that the new provision will take effect in January if the state in question allows concealed weapons.

"According to The Seattle Times, the change will have limited impact in Washington state. Even though the state has a concealed weapons program, the Times reported, “many visitors won’t be able to pack a gun because Washington only recognizes concealed-weapons permits from a handful of states with requirements as stringent. That’s just eight states, the closest of which is Utah.”

"So, in addition to loaded guns being taken into previously pastoral parks and crowded campgrounds, there now is this huge new bureaucratic and enforcement nightmare. We hope the next administration reverts to the old rule."


The idiocy of such a position is obvious to someone not blinded by a bizarre, leftist, anti-gun agenda. And the verbiage?

"So, in addition to loaded guns being taken into previously pastoral parks and crowded campgrounds"

As if the view is somehow diminished by my decision to carry a concealed .45 Colt Combat Commander?

As I stated before: Idiots.

As I had written:

"In situations like these, I tend to think of those writing these editorials in terms of "what would THEY want if their life was on the line?"

If these writers were at risk in a classroom. If there was a Columbine-style shooting going on in a school where they happened to be; would they pissed that I was carrying a .357 magnum? Would they be so outraged when I pulled my weapon and ended the threat?

It's not hard to imagine these sanctimonious hypocrites in a Virginia Tech classroom, whimpering on the floor in little liberal, whinny puddles, howling with outrage that some student or faculty member; or even worse, say, a college-student military-veteran had actually come to class with a firearm and was ready to use it to SAVE THEIR INCREASINGLY WORTHLESS LIVES had actually done so.

And so now what happens?

A completely-controlled-by-democrats Senate now BACKS allowing guns in Federal Parks AND Wildlife Refuges.

How much that must suck for the local fishwrapper.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which he said would protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The amendment allows firearms in parks and wildlife refuges, as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.

"If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm," Coburn said.

Twenty-seven Democrats joined 39 Republicans and one independent in supporting the amendment, which was attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies. The amendment was approved 67-29.
This is OVERWHELMING support for a position this newspaper abhors. I guess someone is clueless... and I've got to wonder who.

Will this newspaper re-evaluate their position to something that actualy relates to common sense?

Nahhhh.



Senate Backs Allowing Guns In National Parks
Senate Backs Amendment To Allow Loaded Guns In National Parks
WASHINGTON, May. 12, 2009
E-Mail Story
Print Story
Sphere

(AP) The Senate on Tuesday backed an amendment that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which he said would protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The amendment allows firearms in parks and wildlife refuges, as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.
.
"If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm," Coburn said.
.
Twenty-seven Democrats joined 39 Republicans and one independent in supporting the amendment, which was attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies. The amendment was approved 67-29.
.
Groups supporting gun control, park rangers and retirees opposed the amendment, which they said went further than a Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded handguns in national parks and refuges.
.
A federal judge blocked the policy in March, two months after it went into effect in the waning days of President George W. Bush's term. The Obama administration has said it will not appeal the court ruling.
.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Concealed weapon permit holders, although law abiding and trustworthy while packing in a highly populated urban area, turn magically into blood thirsty vigilantes when they enter a national park. They can't be trusted.

Their once impeccable safety record and microscopically low incidence of firearms misuse is suddenly at risk of disintegrating into mindless brandishing, and wanton terrorizing of campers, especially badly dressed europeans wearing black sock with their sandals.

Oy

Just a guy said...

You've got THAT right.

Sheesh.